I write in reference to Rashmee Roshan Lall's article Will a new dawn for Pakistan mean a shift in relations with India? (August 8): this piece was condescending and patronising in its assertion that Imran Khan is a "start-up leader" who was somehow obliged to mention India in his victory speech.
There has also been a lot of hostility and venom spewed by the Indian media, painting Mr Khan as a villain even before the results were out.
It was therefore magnanimous of Mr Khan to have even mentioned India in his victory speech. Not only that, he showed genuine interest in peace. Sadly, India's reaction remains negative, at its own loss.
Pakistan will deal with India as a sovereign equal and needs no guidance from India as to how it should conduct bilateral ties with other countries.
Imran might be a “start-up leader” but he is definitely not a sanitised leader like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. As chief minister for Gujarat, he was refused a visit visa to the US in 2005 and he was blamed for allowing anti-Muslim riots to escalate in 2002, leading to more than 1,000 deaths.
It is time for India to correct its negative stance of refusing to talk to Pakistan and involve itself adequately in the Kashmir issue, a dangerous flashpoint for two nuclear armed neighbours. Let sanity prevail.
Mohammad Hamza, Dubai
Imran Khan has not even been sworn in as prime minister of Pakistan yet. Let us give him and peace a fair chance on the subcontinent and reserve judgment for the time being. He will have his hands full sorting out Pakistan’s complex economy first.
A tortuous 70-year history between two nations cannot simply be ironed out overnight by a single election, no matter how eventful. Let us be patient and not prejudge Mr Khan before he has begun.
Rajendra Aneja, Dubai
Imran Khan was respected by Indians as a sports personality and will certainly deliver. Cricket is a good teacher when it comes to sportsmanship.
K Ragavan, Bangalore
Weapons have no place in peace-loving societies
In reference to Parents call for bag checking at schools (August 8), I can scarcely believe it. Before the child sets off for school, perhaps these parents ought to to check their children's bags themselves. Better still, they should know what their children are buying and bringing into the home.
I cannot believe that parents abrogate their responsibilities to the extent their offspring can purchase or acquire knuckledusters, flick knives and other weapons designed to bring harm to others.
When these weapons began to surface on the streets of Britain, they were banned. Perhaps that should be the starting point. They have no place in a peace-loving society.
Judith Finnemore, Al Ain